I am a virgin poster and low hour ppl, so feel I am accepting a fair amount of risk posting here!! But anyhow here we go….
When we fly we all accept an inherent level of risk. The level of risk associated with any given situation or set of prevailing circumstances is massively influenced by our experience, training, natural skill level, the vehicle we are flying in and its equipment. For example, the level of risk accepted by a high hours professional pilot flying in adverse weather or over hostile terrain is going to be far less than for a bloke like me – an amateur, low hours ppl.
Given all this, the level of risk we are prepared to accept ultimately comes down to personal judgement. So, if we have accepted a reasonable level of risk, go flying and nonetheless something bad happens – eg professional pilot forced to deploy a chute on a cirrus only to end up in an electricity sub station – then that is bad luck. If on the other hand we accept a high level of risk - eg inexperienced pilot in a poorly equipped aircraft hitting the ground whilst flying over mountainous terrain in bad weather – then that us poor judgement.
In the case of this recent tragic accident, the metars and tafs certainly paint a very bleak set of weather conditions. On the face of it, it is hard to see that the pilot accepted a reasonable level of risk when he decided to fly. Whether bad luck or bad judgement, he and his passengers paid a very high price for this decision. All our thoughts have got to be with family and friends of those on board.